Jharkhand High Court
Jaleshwar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2024
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.99 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.99 of 2017
(Against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.2016
passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti, in S.T.
No.430 of 2009, arising out of Murhu P.S. case No.32 of 2007, corresponding to
G.R. No.205 of 2007)
Jaleshwar Mahto ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.
JUDGMENT DATED: 19.02.2024
This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction and
order of sentence dated 25.11.2016 passed by the learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti, in S.T. No.430 of 2009, arising
out of Murhu P.S. case No.32 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No.205
of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months u/s 323 of IPC
along with fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine,
further directed to sentence for 3 months simple imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that as per fardbeyan of
tenant Sarita Devi w/o Jaleshwar Mahto R/o village Ethey, P.S.
Murhu, District- Khunti that on 25.03.2007 at about 11:30 AM, she
had stated before the police officer that she is married with
Jaleshwar Mahto of village Ethey in the year 1996. Out of said
wedlock, she has been blessed with two children, but her husband
had demanded Rs. 50,000/- and one motorcycle to her as dowry and
when she had not fulfilled the same; in the year 2003, her husband
Jaleshwar Mahto had solemnized second marriage with one Fulmani
Devi and thereafter he had compelled her to live in one room of her
house.
3. The informant had further stated that since then, she is
residing in the said house along with her two children; but on
25.03.07 at about 11:00 'O' Clock, suddenly her husband Jaleshwar
Mahto along with his second wife Fulmani Devi entered inside her
room, started assaulting her by fist and kicks and have also stolen
Rs. 900/- from her purse. When she had resisted, then her husband
Jaleshwar Mahto had tried to assault her by a rod and for that
motive he chased her, but the informant had anyway managed to
flee away and came to the police station. The informant had further
stated that she had apprehension of murder as the accused persons
usually threatened her to kill.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan, Murhu P.S Case
No.32/2007, under Sections 498A,448,323,307,379 I.P.C r/w section
34 IPC has been registered against both the accused Jaleshwar Mahto
S/o Raghu Mahto & Fulmani Devi W/o Jaleshwar Mahto, R/o
village Ethey, P.S. Murhu, Dist-Khunti and investigation of the case
has been taken up and after completion of investigation, I.O has
submitted the charge-sheet for the offence u/s 498-A,448,323,307,379
I.P.C r/w section 34 IPC against both the accused Jaleshwar Mahto
& Fulmani Devi on 30.08.2008 before the court of the then A.C.J.M,
Khunti, who after taking cognizance for the offence u/s
498A,448,323,307,379 I.P.C r/w section 34 IPC, committed the case to
the court of sessions and in the court of Sessions, Charges for the
offence under Sections 498A,448,323,307,379 I.P.C r/w section 34 IPC
I.P.C were framed on 05.01.2010 against both the accused, which has
been read over and explained to them in Hindi, for which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and the learned trial court
after conducting the full-fledged trial, passed the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.2016,
which is under challenge vide Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.99 of 2017.
5. Heard Vishal Kr. Rai, learned defence counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned APP
appearing on behalf of the State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants
6. At the outset, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the
appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
sections 323 of the IPC along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in the
default of payment of fine, the appellant was further sentenced for
three months simple imprisonment.
7. Further, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the
appellant does not want to argue this case on merit and as such, he
is confining his argument only on the point of sentence. It has been
pointed out that out of maximum six months imprisonment, this
appellant has already remained in jail for about three months and
twenty days and thus a substantive period, i.e., more than 50 percent
of sentence has already been served by the appellant.
8. Further, it has been pointed out that the charge was framed by
the learned court below for the offence punishable under sections
448, 323, 307, 379 and 498A/34 of the IPC, but the appellant was
convicted only for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC
and in the rest of the allegations, as charged by the learned court
below, the appellant has been acquitted.
9. Further, it has been pointed out that this appellant has
suffered the trauma and misery of criminal prosecution for about
more than 15 years as the incident had taken place in the year 2007
and there is nothing on record to show about his criminal history
and therefore, it is prayed on behalf of the appellant that after
upholding the judgment of conviction passed against the appellant,
the order of sentence may be modified to the extent that appellant be
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him
and further the award of sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- as imposed
by the learned court below may be upheld.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State
10. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the
State fairly submitted that since the appellant does not want to argue
this case on merit and therefore let the judgment of conviction
passed by the learned court below may be confirmed and so far as
the sentence is concerned, a suitable order for modification of
sentence may be passed.
11. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State did not
controvert the fact that the appellant has remained in jail for about
03 months 20 days as per the record and further there is nothing on
record to show that there is criminal history against the appellant
and in this view of the matter, it is prayed that a suitable order by
modification of sentence may be passed after upholding the
judgment of conviction.
Appraisal & Findings
12. Having heard learned counsels the parties, perused the records
of this case including the lower courts records.
13. It is found that the learned trial court has found the appellant
guilty for the offence punishable under sections 323 of IPC and he
was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under section 323 of
the IPC and a sentence of fine was imposed to a sum of Rs. 1000/-
and in the default of payment of fine, the appellant was sentenced to
undergo S.I. for three months and in case of payment of fine of Rs.
500/-, it was awarded to the victim as compensation under section
357 of the Cr.P.C.
14. Since, the appellant does not want to argue this case on merit,
i.e. the judgment of conviction and therefore, this Court uphold the
judgment of conviction dated 25.11.2016, passed by the learned
District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti, in S.T. No.430 of
2009, arising out of Murhu P.S. case No.32 of 2007, corresponding to
G.R. No.205 of 2007 against the appellant.
15. So far as the order of sentence is concerned, it is found that the
incident had taken place as far back as in the year 2007, about more
than 15 years ago and there is nothing on record to show about the
criminal history against this appellant.
16. Further, it is found that this appellant has already remained
in jail for 03 months 20 days and he is suffering with trauma and
misery of the criminal case for a long period of time, i.e. since 2007
and therefore, it is found reasonable to modify the order of sentence.
17. Accordingly, the order of sentence dated 25.11.2016 passed by
the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti, in S.T.
No.430 of 2009, arising out of Murhu P.S. case No.32 of 2007,
corresponding to G.R. No.205 of 2007 is set aside.
18. And the appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
the period already undergone by him and further he is sentenced to
a fine of Rs. 1000/- by way of compensation in order to give to the
victim PW-1 Sarita Devi and in case of the default of payment of
fine, appellant is directed to serve a period of S.I. for three months.
19. Since, the appellant above named is on bail and, therefore, a
period of four months' time is given to him from today to make
payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) by way of
compensation in order to give it to the victim PW-1, Sarita Devi.
20. In case of the default of payment of fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand Only) by way compensation in order to give
it to victim, (PW-1 Sarita Devi) so awarded by this Court within the
stipulated period of time, the appellant shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months.
21. The learned trial court is directed to ensure that the said fine
amount is deposited within the stipulated period of time and if the
same is not deposited by the appellant, he will serve the sentence as
awarded in case in default of payment of fine, so awarded, by taking
all necessary measures as per the provisions of law to ensure that the
appellant serves the sentence of imprisonment in case of default of
payment of fine.
22. The appellant may be allowed to deposit the said fine amount
through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court. At the moment, he
deposits the fine amount, he (the appellant) shall be released
forthwith on deposit of the said fine amount and he shall be
discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly.
23. The learned court below is also directed that on deposit of the
said fine amount by the appellant, the notice shall be sent to the
victim PW-1 Sarita Devi and on her appearance, the said fine
amount, if so deposited by the appellant, shall be disbursed to her.
24. In case, if the said victim (PW-1 Sarita Devi) is not traceable or
not available or not found at the given address, or does not appear
before the Court after the notice, the same shall be disbursed to the
close or near relatives or kith and kin of the said victim as the
concerned learned trial court may deem fit and proper, and in this
regard the court concerned may also involve the Para Legal
Volunteer (PLV) of District Legal services Authority (DLSA), Khunti,
if required.
25. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with modification in
order of sentence.
26. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned court below
along with the Lower Court Records for its compliance in letters and
spirit.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi,
Dated the 19.02.2024/NAFR
R.Kumar/-
